Journal for Nature Conservation 24 (2015) 4955

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal for Nature Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/jnc

Setting conservation priorities within monophyletic groups:

An integrative approach
Marlia P. Gaiarsa a, , Laura R.V. Alencar a , Paula H. Valdujo b , Leandro R. Tambosi a ,
Marcio Martins a
a
Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biocincias, Universidade de So Paulo, Rua do Mato, Travessa 14, Cidade Universitria, So Paulo, SP,
05508-090, Brazil
b
Laboratrio de Ecologia da Paisagem, WWF-Brasil, SHIS QL 6/8, Conjunto E, Lago Sul, Braslia, DF, 71620-430, Brazil

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 12 October 2013
Received in revised form 22 January 2015
Accepted 23 January 2015
Keywords:
Priority index
Ecological oddity
Phylogenetic distinctness
Extrinsic factors
Pseudoboini
Neotropical snakes

a b s t r a c t
Species differ in their need for conservation action and in their relative importance for conserving current
and historic ecological and evolutionary diversity. Given the present biodiversity crisis and the lack of
resources, threatened species must be differentiated from each other so that those presenting higher
conservation priority can be attended rst. Here we propose a novel approach to calculate a priority
index (PI) for species within monophyletic groups, by combining life history traits, extrinsic factors,
ecological singularity, and phylogenetic distinctness. To test our approach we used a group of Neotropical
snakes, the pseudoboines, as our model lineage. To create the PI we combined four different indices:
intrinsic vulnerability to extinction (IVE, comprised by six factors), extrinsic vulnerability to extinction
(EVE, comprised by three factors), ecological oddity (EO, four factors) and phylogenetic distinctness (PD).
Intrinsic vulnerability to extinction was evenly distributed across the clade and EVE was higher in species
present in the Brazilian hotspots of Biodiversity, Atlantic Forest and Cerrado. As expected due to the
nature of the index, a few species that differ from the average phenotype presented high EO values,
whereas PD values did not vary greatly among pseudoboines. Representatives from almost all clades
within the pseudoboines appear among the ten highest PI values, maximizing the phylogenetic diversity
of the prioritized taxa. Although it is not possible to compare values obtained in studies to different
lineages (indices are clade-specic), extending this approach to more inclusive lineages (e.g., families)
might enhance the quality of future prioritization processes. The method we propose would be especially
useful for taxonomically driven conservation action plans.
2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Given the biodiversity crisis and the relative scarcity of
resources (Barnosky et al. 2011; Brooks et al. 2006) threatened
species must be differentiated from each other so that those
presenting higher conservation priority can be attended to rst
(Wilson et al. 2009). Thus, a major challenge for conservation
focused on species is to set priorities for conservation efforts (Pimm
et al. 2001; Wilson et al. 2006). Although the prioritization of conservation efforts may involve several factors such as socioeconomic
and political issues (Eklund et al. 2011; Polasky 2008; Wilson et al.
2009; Wilson et al. 2011), having the knowledge of the vulnerability to extinction of a species can help to predict the outcomes

Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 11 3091 7600; fax: +55 11 3091 8096.
E-mail address: gaiarsa.mp@gmail.com (M.P. Gaiarsa).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.01.006
1617-1381/ 2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

of different future scenarios (Jones et al. 2003; Pimm et al. 1988;

Webb et al. 2002; Wilson et al. 2006).
Vulnerability to extinction is related to extrinsic factors, such as
habitat loss and disturbance (Brooks et al. 2006; IUCN 2009; Pimm
et al. 1995), and there are several ways to infer the effects of these
factors on species vulnerability. For example, the degree of habitat fragmentation or disturbed habitat within the species range
can be an important factor (Laurance 2008), given that species
isolated in small habitat patches may present an increased probability of extinction due to genetic problems and environmental
stochasticity (Lande 1993; Tanentzap et al. 2012). Furthermore, the
amount of human infrastructure within the distributional range
can also be considered a potential cause of species vulnerability to
extinction (e.g., the human footprint; Sanderson et al. 2002). Likewise, a species vulnerability to extinction can also be inuenced by
intrinsic traits (Foufopoulos & Ives 1999; Mckinney 1997) such as
ecological specializations (e.g., in diet or in habitat requirements;

50

M.P. Gaiarsa et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 24 (2015) 4955

Mckinney 1997; Segura et al. 2007), restricted geographic range

(Cardillo et al. 2008; Purvis et al. 2000; Rabinowitz et al. 1986), and
life histories attributes that might decrease the rate at which new
individuals are incorporated in the populations (e.g., late maturation, small litter size, large body size; for reviews see Brown 1995;
Mckinney 1997; Purvis et al. 2000).
Besides vulnerability to extinction other factors may be considered when prioritizing species for conservation purposes. For
example, it has already been proposed that biodiversity measures
should also consider the representation of evolutionary history
(Cadotte & Davies 2010; Faith 1992, 2002; Isaac et al. 2007; May
1990; but see Winter et al. 2013). Phylogenetic distinctness (PD) is
one of the metrics developed to measure the evolutionary uniqueness of a group (May 1990; Vane-Wright et al. 1991). Phylogenetic
distinctness measures the uniqueness of the terminal taxa within
the group: the more relictual a species is, the higher its PD, and
therefore, the greater the amount of historical features being conserved (for a range of approaches see Collen et al. 2011; Heard &
Mooers 2000; Mace et al. 2003; Steel et al. 2007).
Additionally, a recent approach to conservation incorporates the
ecological distinctness of species, assuming that ecological features
are associated to different ecological roles and ecosystem functions
(Cadotte & Davies 2010; Petchey & Gaston 2006; Redding et al.
2010). In this sense, Redding et al. (2010) proposed the ecological
oddity as measure of ecological distinctness, where odd is dened
as the absolute distance from the average phenotype (Redding
et al. 2010). Therefore, the more distinct a species is in relation to
the other species within a clade, the higher its ecological oddity.
Redding et al. (2010) used this metric to measure how the protection of evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered species
(EDGE; Isaac et al. 2007; Redding & Mooers 2006) would capture
the ecological diversity of a given clade.
Thus, species are expected to differ regarding the threats to
which they are subjected, and thereby, differ in their need for conservation action and in their relative importance for conserving
both their ecological and evolutionary diversity (Heard & Mooers
2000; Redding et al. 2010). The objective of this study is to propose
an index of species prioritization considering all these aspects as a
way to set conservation priorities within lineages. To demonstrate
our index, we used a Neotropical clade of snakes (tribe Pseudoboini,
subfamily Xenodontinae, family Dipsadidae) as our model. The
most widely used method for creating red lists is the one proposed
by IUCN (2001), but this method only distinguishes species by their
threat status (e.g., vulnerable), not providing a ranking within each
category. The purpose of our method is not to highlight threatened
species, which is the aim of Red Lists, but to address the agony of
choice (Vane-Wright et al. 1991) through an index of species prioritization that encompasses threats, vulnerabilities, ecological and
evolutionary uniqueness, when closely related species are assessed.
This method would be especially useful for taxonomically driven
conservation action plans (e.g., Donaldson 2003; Gascon et al. 2007;
Reeves et al. 2003).

Material and methods

The model lineage
The tribe Pseudoboini (family Dipsadidae, subfamily Xenodontinae, sensu Grazziotin et al. 2012; Zaher et al. 2009) is
monophyletic group of snakes that includes 47 species and 11
genera (Boiruna, Clelia, Drepanoides, Mussurana, Oxyrhopus, Paraphimophis, Phimophis, Pseudoboa, Rhachidelus, Rodriguesophis and
Siphlophis; Grazziotin et al. 2012). The tribe is distributed throughout the Neotropics (Ferrarezzi 1994; Jenner & Dowling 1985), from
Mexico to Argentina (Gaiarsa et al. 2013). Most pseudoboines feed

on lizards and small mammals, whereas some species are specialized in other prey types (e.g., Rhachidelus brazili feeds on bird
eggs; Gaiarsa et al. 2013). Additionally, the tribe is composed
predominantly of terrestrial species (e.g., Clelia spp. and Boiruna
spp.), although some species are semi-arboreal (e.g., Drepanoides
anomalus and Siphlophis cervinus) or semi-fossorial (Phimophis spp.;
Gaiarsa et al. 2013). Hence, this tribe is an ideal model for this
study because of its diversity of ecological features and the relative wealth of natural history data (Gaiarsa et al. 2013). Full details
of the data set and sources are available elsewhere (Tables A1 and
A2; Alencar et al. 2013; Gaiarsa et al. 2013). We followed the taxonomy of Grazziotin et al. (2012) and Zaher et al. (2009) and made
no distinction among subspecies.
Vulnerability to extinction
We adapted the method of Millsap et al. (1990) using data on
factors known to affect species survival to create two indices of
vulnerability to extinction: intrinsic and extrinsic vulnerability to
extinction (IVE and EVE, respectively; see below). We only included
in the analysis species for which data was available for at least 50%
of the factors used to create each index.
Intrinsic vulnerability to extinction (IVE)
We selected six factors that are related to characteristics that
could decrease a species ability to cope with negative alterations
in its habitat, and that are either related to narrow niches and/or to
low abundance (Mckinney 1997): (i) body size, (ii) mean fecundity,
(iii) dietary specialization, (iv) geographic distribution, (v) elevational range and (vi) ability to persist in altered habitats. We initially
included habitat breadth (HB, measured as the number of Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World in which the species occurs, Olson et al.
2001, encompassed by a species geographic range) as a seventh
factor. However, preliminary analyses indicated a high correlation
between HB and the factor geographic distribution (GD; r = 0.81,
Table A3; see below for information on how GD was quantied), so
we excluded habitat breadth from IVE calculations. The remaining
factors had a relatively low correlation (r < 0.45 in all cases, Table
A3). Factors were as follows:
1. Body size (BS): larger species tend to be more vulnerable to
extinction because they are in general less abundant, have later
sexual maturity and are more long-living, thus being less able
to recover from population declines (e.g., Foufopoulos & Ives
1999; Mckinney 1997; Purvis et al. 2000). We used the maximum known snout-vent length for each species, regardless of
the sex.
2. Mean fecundity (MF): low fecundity populations tend to be more
prone to extinction because they take longer to recover from
declines than do high fecundity populations (e.g., Mckinney
1997; Pimm et al. 1988; Purvis et al. 2000). We used mean clutch
size, regardless of the number of litters available.
3. Dietary specialization (DS): animals that are specialists in
resource use (e.g., prey, habitat) tend to be less able to cope with
changes in the resource base (either by anthropogenic or natural causes) and thus, are more vulnerable to extinction (e.g.,
Mckinney 1997; Purvis et al. 2000). To characterize the degree
of diet specialization we used the percentage of the most important prey item in the diet. Thus, the greater the contribution of
one type of prey to the diet, the more specialized in one prey
the species is. Prey items considered were: amphibians, lizards,
lizard eggs, snakes, birds, bird eggs, and mammals. We considered every record, regardless of the number of individual prey
available for each species.

M.P. Gaiarsa et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 24 (2015) 4955

4. Geographic distribution (GD): the smaller the geographic distribution the more vulnerable to extinction a species tends to be
(see, e.g., Cardillo et al. 2008; Fisher & Owens 2004; Purvis et al.
2000). We used occurrence points from museum records and
literature data to estimate the geographic distribution of each
species (for a discussion on different methods see Attorre et al.
2013). Because good distribution maps are not available for most
snakes (see, e.g., Uetz 2013), and very few were available for our
model lineage, GD was calculated according to the available data
(for details on how GD was calculated for pseudoboine snakes,
see supplementary material). Our geographic distribution factor is equivalent to the IUCNs extent of occurrence (EOO; IUCN
2001).
5. Elevational range (EL): animals occurring in a restricted vertical distribution may be more vulnerable to extinction because
they tend to be stenothermics and stenobarics, and thus less
able to cope with habitat change (either by anthropogenic or
natural causes; e.g., Mckinney 1997). We assessed this factor by
calculating the elevational range within the species geographic
distribution (with the same database used to calculate the factor
Geographic Distribution).
6. Ability to persist in altered habitats (AAH; adapted from Filippi
& Luiselli 2000): vulnerability to extinction tends to be greater
in animals that are less able to persist in altered habitats (e.g.,
Fisher & Owens 2004; Purvis et al. 2000). This factor was assessed
based on the personal experience of researchers. Experienced
researchers were asked to assign values for each species as follows: 05 for species which are able to persist in disturbed
habitats (including urban areas); 611 for those which may occasionally persist in disturbed habitats (found in rural areas where
small patches of natural vegetation are available); 1217 for
species which rarely persist in disturbed habitats (may be found
in habitat patches); and 1823 for species which do not persist
in disturbed habitats (found only in large extensions of natural habitat). We employed the mean of the scores given by each
expert for each species. Even though in some cases the opinion
of researchers varied considerably (probably due to the subjectivity involved, see e.g., Keith et al. 2004; Regan et al. 2004, but
also because of geographical variation in this feature), we believe
this metric is still an informative measure of species sensibility
to human disturbance.

Extrinsic vulnerability to extinction (EVE)

Because the greatest threat to species diversity is habitat
destruction (Barnosky et al. 2011; Brooks et al. 2006; IUCN 2009),
we included EVE in our assessment to represent this process.
This index was calculated from three factors: (i) percentage of
remaining natural vegetation within species distribution; (ii) coverage of the protected areas within species distribution; and (iii)
mean human inuence index along species distribution. We initially included density of remaining fragments as a fourth factor
(DF; measured as the area of the remaining fragments in the
species geographic distribution) but preliminary analyses indicated a high correlation between this factor and the percentage
of the remaining habitats (RH; r = 0.94, Table A3) and DF was
excluded. Mean human inuence index along the distribution
(HII) was correlated to two other factors: the intrinsic factor geographic distribution (GD, r = 0.65) and the factor protected areas
(PA, r = 0.57). However, we decided to keep them in the analysis
because they are related to different processes (see explanations
of each factor). The remaining factors had a correlation smaller
than 0.43 (Table A3) and were thus kept in the analysis. All
the following factors were assessed based on species geographic
range.

51

1. Percentage of remaining habitats (RH): we reclassied the 2009

GlobCover map v. 2.3 (ESA 2008) into habitat and non-habitat
classes according to the habitat preferences and tolerance to
disturbance of each species (Table A4). Then, we calculated the
percentage of remaining habitat inside each species geographic
distribution.
2. Percentage of the protected areas within the distribution (PA):
assuming that species whose range overlap with protected areas
have a reduced extinction risk, we calculated the percentage of
the species geographic distribution within protected areas (cf.
covered species, Rodrigues et al. 2004). Since sustainable use
reserves may allow some degree of habitat degradation, we used
only strict protection categories (IUCN categories IIV, cf. IUCN
& UNEP 2009; Rodrigues et al. 2004).
3. Mean human inuence index along the distribution (HI): human
inuence is one of the most important threats to biodiversity
(Lande 1993). To assess this factor we employed the Human
Inuence Index proposed by Sanderson et al. (2002), which considers factors such as population density, land use, built-up areas
or settlements, among others. Index maps were downloaded
from the Last of the Wild website (Last of the Wild Data Version
2 2005) and overlapped with species geographic distribution.
Mean index score within the species range was employed as our
HI factor.
For each index (IVE and EVE) we ranked the species for every
factor and assigned their ranking number such that the higher the
score the greater the contribution of that factor to the vulnerability
to extinction. When ties occurred, we employed the mean ranking
score, as usual in ranking statistical procedures (Zar 1999). Afterwards, we used the mean of factors mean to create the indices
of vulnerability to extinction (IVE and EVE), separately. We chose
to use a linear ranking system to build the indices of vulnerability
to extinction because in our case (in which many biological data
is used and complete data sets are available for several species)
this system provides a great resolution among taxa (Millsap et al.
1990; Todd & Burgman 1998; for a review of the methods for setting
conservation priorities see Mace et al. 2007).
Ecological oddity
We used the ecological oddity index (EO) proposed by Redding
et al. (2010), which considers the distance of a given trait of a given
species in relation to the lineage mean for that trait. This factor
is comparative and considers how each species is ecologically distinct in relation to the other species of the clade. We calculated
EO for four traits: three continuous (body size, mean fecundity and
habitat breadth, as described above) and one categorical (dietary
breadth). We only included in the analysis species for which data
was available for at least 50% of the factors. We are aware that the
use of more variables like population density, home range, body
mass and life span (cf. Redding et al. 2010) would result in a better
representation of EO, but these sort of data are scarce for snakes.
For the continuous factors we log transformed the values and
then calculated the absolute distance of each species score to the
mean score of that variable (cf. Redding et al. 2010). For the categorical variable dietary breadth, the value assigned to a species
was the sum of the frequency of the prey category divided by the
number of species in the entire data set that also consume that prey
(cf. Redding et al. 2010). Therefore, the more a species feeds upon a
food type that a great number of other species also feed, the smaller
the EO value for that species. For example, since the majority of
the species consumes lizards, all species that consume lizards will
present a small value for this variable. On the other hand, species
that consume unique items in relation to the other species of the
Tribe (e.g., snakes and lizards eggs) will present the highest values

52

M.P. Gaiarsa et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 24 (2015) 4955

of the variable dietary breadth. We only considered prey items representing over 20% of the diet. The mean of these four factors was
then ranked, such that the higher the score, the greater the species
rank and when ties occurred we employed the mean ranking
score.

on path from root to a species, scaled inversely by the maximum

value (Maddison & Mooers 2007). Phylogenetic distinctness was
calculated on Tuatara module (Maddison & Mooers 2007) of the
Mesquite software (Maddison & Maddison 2007). As performed for
the other indices, we then ranked the species so that the higher the
PD value, the higher the species rank, and when ties occurred we
employed the mean ranking score.

Phylogenetic distinctness
We used the most recent published phylogenetic hypothesis
for the tribe Pseudoboini (Grazziotin et al. 2012; Fig. A1). We also
included species that were not in the original phylogeny considering their afnities with the species that were already included
(see, e.g., Martins et al. 2001) using literature information (e.g.,
Vidal et al. 2010; Zaher et al. 2009; Fig. A1) and expert knowledge (H. Zaher, pers. comm.). We considered Mays distinctness
measure (May 1990) as our phylogenetic distinctness (PD) scores,
which measures the sum of the number of descendants of nodes

Priority index
Although the indices (IVE, EVE, EO, and PD) used to calculate
the priority index (PI) have different magnitude, when we used the
rankings of each species they became standardized, rendering them
comparable. We then tested for correlation among indices using a
Pearson rank correlation test (after testing indices for normality;
Table A5). We only included in the analysis species for which at
least three of the indices were available.

Table 1
Ranking of factors scores used to build the index of intrinsic (IVE) and extrinsic (EVE) vulnerability to extinction and the values for ecological oddity (EO) and Phylogenetic
Distinctness (PD) for the species of the tribe Pseudoboini (refer to text for further details). Species appear in alphabetical order. BS: body size; MF: mean fecundity; DS:
dietary specialization; GD: geographic distribution; EL: elevational range; AAH: ability to persist in altered habitats; RH: percentage of remaining habitats; PA: percentage of
protected areas along the distribution; HI: mean human inuence index along the distribution; HB: habitat breadth; DB: dietary breadth. Variables for which data was not
available are indicated with . Habitat breadth and DF were excluded from the calculation of IVE and EVE, respectively (refer to text for further details).
Species

Boiruna maculata
Boiruna sertaneja
Clelia clelia
Clelia equatoriana
Clelia errabunda
Clelia hussami
Clelia langeri
Clelia plumbea
Clelia scytalina
Drepanoides anomalus
Mussurana bicolor
Mussurana montana
Mussurana quimi
Oxyrhopus clathratus
Oxyrhopus doliatus
Oxyrhopus erdisii
Oxyrhopus tzingeri
Oxyrhopus formosus
Oxyrhopus guibei
Oxyrhopus leucomelas
Oxyrhopus marcapatae
Oxyrhopus melanogenys
Oxyrhopus occipitalis
Oxyrhopus petola
Oxyrhopus rhombifer
Oxyrhopus trigeminus
Oxyrhopus vanidicus
Paraphimophis rusticus
Phimophis guerini
Phimophis guianensis
Phimophis vittatus
Pseudoboa coronata
Pseudoboa haasi
Pseudoboa martinsi
Pseudoboa neuwiedii
Pseudoboa nigra
Pseudoboa serrana
Rhachidelus brazili
Rodriguesophis chui
Rodriguesophis iglesiasi
Rodriguesophis scriptorcibatus
Siphlophis cervinus
Siphlophis compressus
Siphlophis leucocephalus
Siphlophis longicaudatus
Siphlophis pulcher
Siphlophis worontzowi

IVE

EVE

EO

PD

BS

MF

DS

GD

EL

AAH

RH

PA

HI

BS

MF

HB

DB

39
40
41
37
36
23.5
34
42
29
7
11
17
22
28
3

23.5

14
13
27
18
12
15
38
21
5
6
26
33
25
19
32
31
35
2
4
1
20
30
8
16
10
9

13
8
2

29
9.5
9.5
5
15

6
27.5
16
12
14
3
11
24

22
25
21
18.5
20
7

26

30

23
17

18.5
27.5

12
15
4.5

30.5
18

20
8
8
16.5
23

19

3
30.5
1
4.5
11
8
8
26

2
13
30.5
8
14

21

30.5
30.5
22
27
30.5
16.5
24.5
24.5

13
17
2
34

41
39
4
30
8
27
35
15
31

38

16
29
36
11
21
10
3
6
18
20
9
24
23
1
32
14
22
12
40
28

19

7
5
33
25
37
26

21
31.5
10
7

41
8
23
9
38
39
17.5
15
29

28

20
2
3
40
12
5
14
30
11
6
17.5
37
4
35
33
22
24
25
17.5
26

34

1
36
31.5
17.5
27
13

10
30
27

21

23
13
30

24.5
1

3
17
7.5

19
14

7.5
12
24.5
2
5
16
11
27
22
30
18
20

6
15
27

27
37
38
26

40

19
24
10
23
14
25
5

29

1
28
21
7
13
6
34
33
12
11
39
36
30
9
4
8
17
2
22
16

35

15
18
31
32
20
3

35
34
18
15

40
2
20
38
9
39
23
30
22

41

29
16
1
12
14
21
32
24
5
36
26
17
37
7
31
4
11
28
3
33

19

10
13
25
27
6
8

26
23
11
31

27
14
20
37
3
15
41
34
32

25

36
24
10
6
9
19
22
18
2
30
21
13
17
4
33
1
12
29
38
39

16

5
7
28
35
40
8

0.290
0.294
0.386
0.153
0.146
0.040
0.119
0.452
0.082
0.173
0.077
0.020
0.029
0.060
0.431

0.040

0.039
0.041
0.050
0.012
0.059
0.036
0.274
0.023
0.181
0.180
0.045
0.118
0.044
0.006
0.107
0.101
0.144
0.516
0.346
0.602
0.002
0.096
0.143
0.024
0.089
0.121

0.068
0.135
0.269

0.269

0.463
0.123
0.123
0.220
0.060

0.260

0.229
0.345
0.022
0.086
0.068
0.248
0.117
0.155

0.132
0.170
0.102
0.053
0.081
0.146

0.178

0.530

0.143
0.039

0.053
0.229

0.271
0.127
0.734
0.185

1.030
0.252
0.201
0.116
0.201
0.075
0.252
0.185
0.127

0.729

0.174
0.127
0.127
0.116
0.146
0.678
0.249
0.293
0.049
0.174
0.049
0.116
0.075
0.332
0.252
0.226
0.226
0.313
0.553
0.428

0.185

0.417
0.332
0.127
0.127
0.428
0.030

0.231
0.092
0.066

0.077
0.085

0.787
0.500
0.077
0.058
0.063

0.068

0.056
0.043
0.288
0.059
0.050
0.060
0.083
0.040

0.212
0.046
0.111
0.069
0.029

0.800

0.043
0.043
0.035
0.042
0.043
0.060
0.036
0.036

1.333
1.333
1.143
1.143

1.143

1.143
1.143
1.600
1.143
1.143
1.143
1.600

1.143
1.333

1.143
1.143
1.333
1.333
1.333
1.143
1.600
1.231
1.231
1.231
1.143
1.000
1.067
1.067
1.000
1.067
1.600
1.778
1.778
1.778
2.286
2.286
2.286
2.286
2.286
2.286

M.P. Gaiarsa et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 24 (2015) 4955

53

Results

Discussion

There was great variation in the biological features for the group
studied (Table A1; Gaiarsa et al. 2013). In general, all the species
with the highest IVE presented high values for the factors GD and
BS (Table 1). The index of extrinsic vulnerability to extinction (EVE)
was calculated for 41 species and ranged from 4.3 to 35.7, with a
mean of 20.7 8.8 (Table 2). The index of intrinsic vulnerability to
extinction (IVE) was calculated for 39 species and ranged from 10.3
to 35.2, with a mean of 19.4 5.3 (Table 2).
Ecological oddity (EO) was calculated for 39 species and ranged
from 0.06 to 0.53 (Table 2), with a mean of 0.18 0.11, and
phylogenetic distinctness (PD) was obtained for 40 species. Due
to polytomies in our phylogeny, all the species from the genus
Siphlophis presented the highest PD (2.29), followed by the genus
Rodriguesophis (Table 1 and Fig. A1). Finally, priority index (PI)
was calculated for 39 species and ranged from 5.38 to 30.46
(Table 2).

The approach we propose provides a systematic, transparent,

and repeatable method for prioritizing species conservation within
monophyletic groups (Joseph et al. 2009) explicitly using available information about life history and threats. Our method is both
proactive and reactive, identifying species that may be currently
threatened (IVE) and that are facing an imminent risk of decline due
to extrinsic factors (EVE). In addition, we considered ecological and
phylogenetic aspects (May 1990; Redding et al. 2010), since we do
not know yet which traits (ecological, biogeographical, evolutionary) will be important in face of habitat loss and climate change
(Myers & Knoll 2001).
When we consider the ten species with the highest EVE, with
the exception of Clelia scytalina and Oxyrhopus tzingeri, all of
them are distributed in the Brazilian Cerrado and in the Atlantic
Forest. Together, these biomes cover approximately one third of
Brazils surface and are considered Biodiversity Hotspots due to

Table 2
Mean ranking scores for all the indices: intrinsic vulnerability to extinction (IVE), extrinsic vulnerability to extinction (EVE), ecological oddity (EO), phylogenetic distinctiveness
(PD) and priority index (PI) for the species of the tribe Pseudoboini. See text for further detail. Species are ranked in descending order according to their priority index. We
only included in the analysis species for which at least three of the indices were available (Clelia errabunda, Oxyrhopus doliatus, O. erdisii, O. tzingeri, O. formosus, O. leucomelas,
O. marcapatae and Rodriguesophis chui were not evaluated). Missing values are indicated with .
Species

IVE

EVE

PD

EO

PI

Clelia hussami
Rhachidelus brazili
Rodriguesophis scriptorcibatus
Rodriguesophis iglesiasi
Siphlophis pulcher
Boiruna sertaneja
Boiruna maculata
Siphlophis leucocephalus
Paraphimophis rusticus
Drepanoides anomalus
Clelia equatoriana
Siphlophis compressus
Siphlophis longicaudatus
Pseudoboa serrana
Siphlophis cervinus
Clelia clelia
Phimophis guianensis
Mussurana bicolor
Oxyrhopus petola
Clelia plumbea
Oxyrhopus guibei
Phimophis vittatus
Clelia langeri
Oxyrhopus clathratus
Oxyrhopus trigeminus
Clelia scytalina
Oxyrhopus rhombifer
Mussurana montana
Mussurana quimi
Phimophis guerini
Pseudoboa haasi
Siphlophis worontzowi
Oxyrhopus occipitalis
Pseudoboa coronata
Pseudoboa nigra
Oxyrhopus melanogenys
Pseudoboa martinsi
Pseudoboa neuwiedii
Oxyrhopus vanidicus
Clelia errabunda
Oxyrhopus doliatus
Oxyrhopus erdisii
Oxyrhopus tzingeri
Oxyrhopus formosus
Oxyrhopus leucomelas
Oxyrhopus marcapatae
Rodriguesophis chui

35.17
24.5
20.5
23.25
23.5
23.58
18
25.75
17
20.83
26
22.5
16.58
26.13
15.17
14.42
22
17.92
10.33
18.17
13.92
13.75
27.88
22.5
13.42
22.67
11.42
19.5
14.7
18.58
24
19.9
20.8
16.08
15.83
13
22.42
15.83
11

35.67
29.33

23.33
22
31.33
29.33
28
25.67
7.33
24
12.67
31.33
21
10
22.33
22
25.67
15.33
19.67
22
28
8
19.67
25
33
29.33
26
29.67
28.67
22.67
6.33
12
6.67
19.67
8.33
4.33
13.33
6.33

31.67

22.67
10.67

12
29.5
33
33
37.5
24.5
24.5
37.5
29.5
29.5
12
37.5
37.5
4
37.5
12
20
12
24.5
12
24.5
20

29.5
24.5
12
24.5
12
12
20
1.5
37.5
12
12
1.5
12
4
4
12

12

33

39
37
34
33
29
24
30
9
25
38
26
15
2
35
23
36
20
28
32
31
18
16
22
4
12
7
8
13
14
3
17
1
19
27
21
11
10
5
6

30.46
30.08
29.17
28.15
28.00
25.85
25.46
25.06
24.29
23.92
22.00
21.92
21.85
21.53
21.42
21.19
21.00
20.90
20.54
20.21
19.61
19.44
19.29
18.92
18.73
18.67
18.31
17.63
17.59
17.56
16.29
16.18
15.95
15.44
14.50
11.08
10.19
9.54
8.83

54

M.P. Gaiarsa et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 24 (2015) 4955

their remarkably high level of endemism and accelerated habitat

loss (Myers et al. 2000). Likewise, all ten species with the highest
PI scores also occur in these regions. Hence, our results corroborate the suggestion that Hotspots are not only important in terms
of species diversity, but also are centers of unique and threatened
evolutionary history (Sechrest et al. 2002).
The two genera that had no species among the ten highest PI
were Oxyrhopus and Pseudoboa. The genus Oxyrhopus comprises
mostly widespread, generalist and disturbance-tolerant species.
However, it is important to point out that we were unable to evaluate almost half of the Oxyrhopus species (Table 2, Tables A1 and A2),
all of which have narrow ranges (Gaiarsa et al. 2013). Since range
size and tolerance to habitat alteration appear to be related, due to a
synergistic combination of extinction-promoting traits (Mckinney
1997; Swihart et al. 2003), we recommend that future studies seek
to better understand the biology and ecology of these poorly known
species. On the other hand, we were able to evaluate all the Pseudoboa species, which had relatively high values of IVE and EO, but
some of the lowest values of PD, which explain their low PIs.
A critical step and one of the main issues in assessing conservation priorities is how data decient species are treated (OGrady
et al. 2004), since some key information about less studied species
under assessment are usually missing (Sattler et al. 2007). In this
study, we were unable to calculate PI for eight species mainly due
to the lack of life history and ecological data (IVE and EO; Table 2).
We chose not to evaluate these data decient species in order to
avoid wrong estimates because discrepancies in risk assessments
can erode condence in conservation decision (Mrosovsky 1997;
Tanentzap et al. 2012). Furthermore, species misclassications can
lead to resource misdirection, especially when the error accumulates over criteria (Todd & Burgman 1998). However, it is important
to note that our data decient species can be at any point in the
continuum from highly threatened to non-threatened. Since our
method considers all species within a phylogenic group (e.g., Tribe),
when data decient species are included, the status of the species
previously assessed will probably change slightly. For example, if
we are able to include in our analyses R. chui it will probably have
high PI (based on existing life history data), thus lowering some of
the PI values of the already assessed species.
Despite the remarkable variation in the life history traits
included in the Ecological Oddity (EO) calculation (body size, fecundity, dietary breadth, and habitat breadth), these factors seem to be
conserved in most of the tribe representatives, resulting in high EO
values for few species that differ from the average morphological
and/or ecological phenotype. Thus, two thirds of the 39 pseudoboines evaluated for this factor had relatively low values for this
index, while only three species had very high EOs (Clelia hussami
because of its narrow habitat breadth, and Drepanoides anomalus
and Rhachidelus brazili due to their diet specialization on lizard
eggs and bird eggs, respectively; Alencar et al. 2013; Gaiarsa et al.
2013). Indeed, this pattern would be expected in any clade with
a great amount of phylogenetic inertia. Unlike expected (Cadotte
et al. 2009; Redding et al. 2010), EO and PD were not correlated
(Table A5), indicating that among pseudoboines higher distinctiveness in ecological or morphological features are not necessarily
restricted to more phylogenetically distinct species. In addition,
although some factors have been used twice in different indices
(like body size and mean fecundity, both used in IVE and EO), none
of the indices used were correlated (Table A3). This result also
reinforces the importance to use prioritizing methods based on several factors (Grammont & Cuarn 2006; Mace et al. 2007). Finally,
another benet of our approach is its exibility and the fact that it
can be easily updated to include other factors and/or metrics.
In the present age of extinction with worst-case scenarios
indicating extinction rates that would qualify as the sixth mass
extinction (Barnosky et al. 2011) we are faced by the agony

of choice (Vane-Wright et al. 1991) and have to decide which

species are saved and which are not targeted with any conservation action (Heard & Mooers 2000; Posadas et al. 2001). Most
strategies focus on the most endangered or threatened species
(Wilson et al. 2006). Thus, in order to aid species prioritization,
the approach used herein considers not only the vulnerability to
extinction of species (EVE and IVE; e.g., Filippi & Luiselli 2000;
IUCN 2001), but also the evolutionary history of the lineage studied (PD; e.g., May 1990; Vane-Wright et al. 1991) as well as the
degree of ecological uniqueness of species within a lineage (EO; cf.
Redding et al. 2010). Although it is not possible to compare values
obtained in studies with different clades (the indices generated are
clade-specic), when extended to more inclusive lineages within a
group of organisms we hope this approach can contribute to a more
comprehensive prioritization framework, enhancing the quality of
future prioritization processes.
Acknowledgments
We thank H. Zaher and F. Grazziotin for kindly providing the
phylogeny and taxonomic information. We also thank D.M. Gaiarsa
for assistance with the analyses and M. Bhm, A. Eterovick, M.
Guimares, P.R. Guimares, C. Nogueira, R.J. Sawaya and I. Sazima for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. This study
was funded by Fundaco de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de So
Paulo (grants 06/58011-4 and 10/50146-3 to M.M.), graduate fellowships (2007/56920-0 to M.P.G. and 2007/56921-6 to L.R.V.A.)
and a research fellowship from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientco e Tecnolgico (301128/2009-0 to M.M.).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.01.006.
References
Alencar, L. R. V., Gaiarsa, M. P., & Martins, M. (2013). The evolution of diet and microhabitat use in pseudoboine snakes. South American Journal of Herpetology, 8,
6066.
Attorre, F., Sanctis, M. D., Farcomeni, A., Guillet, A., Scepi, E., Vitale, M., et al. (2013).
The use of spatial ecological modelling as a tool for improving the assessment
of geographic range size of threatened species. Journal for Nature Conservation,
21, 4855.
Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B.,
et al. (2011). Has the Earths sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471,
5157.
Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., Fonseca, G. A. B., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux,
J. F., et al. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science, 313, 5861.
Brown, W. S. (1995). Macroecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cadotte, M. W., Cavender-Bares, J., Tilman, D., & Oakley, T. H. (2009). Using phylogenetic, functional and trait diversity to understand patterns of plant community
productivity. PLoS One, 4, e5695.
Cadotte, M. W., & Davies, T. J. (2010). Rarest of the rare: Advances in combining evolutionary distinctiveness and scarcity to inform conservation at biogeographical
scales. Diversity and Distributions, 16, 376385.
Cardillo, M., Mace, G. M., Gittleman, J. L., Jones, K. E., Bielby, J., & Purvis, A. (2008).
The predictability of extinction: Biological and external correlates of decline in
mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 275, 14411448.
Collen, B., Turvey, S. T., Waterman, C., Meredith, H. M. R., Kuhn, T. S., Baillie, J. E.
M., et al. (2011). Investing in evolutionary history: Implementing a phylogenetic approach for mammal conservation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 366, 26112622.
Donaldson, J. S. (Ed.). (2003). Cycads. Status survey and conservation action plan. Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN/SSC Cycad Specialist Group, IUCN.
Eklund, J., Arponen, A., Visconti, P., & Cabeza, M. (2011). Governance factors in
the identication of global conservation priorities for mammals. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 26612669.
ESA, European Space Agency. (2008). GlobCover Land Cover v2 2008 database, European Space Agency GlobCover Project, led by MEDIAS-France. Retrieved from
http://ionia1.esrin.esa.int/index.asp
Faith, D. P. (1992). Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biological
Conservation, 61, 110.

M.P. Gaiarsa et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 24 (2015) 4955

Faith, D. P. (2002). Quantifying biodiversity: A phylogenetic perspective. Conservation Biology, 16, 248252.
Ferrarezzi, H. (1994). Uma sinopse dos gneros e classicaco das serpentes (Squamata): II. Famlia Colubridae. In L. B. Nascimento, A. T. Bernardes, & A. G. Cotta
(Eds.), Herpetologia no Brasil 1 (pp. 8191). Fundaco Biodiversitas.
Filippi, E., & Luiselli, L. (2000). Status of the Italian fauna and assessment of conservation threats. Biological Conservation, 93, 219225.
Fisher, D. O., & Owens, I. P. F. (2004). The comparative method in conservation
biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19, 391398.
Foufopoulos, J., & Ives, A. R. (1999). Reptile extinctions on land-bridge islands: Lifehistory attributes and vulnerability to extinction. The American Naturalist, 153,
125.
Gaiarsa, M. P., Alencar, L. R. V., & Martins, M. (2013). Natural history of Pseudoboini
snakes. Papis Avulsos de Zoologia, 53, 261283.
Gascon, C., Collins, J. P., Moore, R. D., Church, D. R., McKay, J. E., & Mendelson, J.
R., III (Eds.). (2007). Amphibian conservation action plan. Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK: IUCN/SSC Amphibian Specialist Group.
Grammont, P., & Cuarn, A. (2006). An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent. Conservation Biology, 20, 1527.
Grazziotin, F. G., Zaher, H., Murphy, R. W., Scrocchi, G., Benavides, M. A., Zhang, Y.
P., et al. (2012). Molecular phylogeny of the New World Dipsadidae (Serpentes:
Colubroidea): A reappraisal. Cladistics, 1, 123.
Heard, S. B., & Mooers, A. . (2000). Phylogenetically patterned speciation rates
and extinction risks change the loss of evolutionary history during extinctions.
Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 267, 613620.
Isaac, N. J. B., Turvey, S. T., Collen, B., Waterman, C., & Baillie, J. E. M. (2007). Mammals
on the EDGE: Conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS One,
3, e296.
IUCN. (2001). IUCN Red List categories and criteria: Version 3.1. Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK: IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN.
IUCN, & UNEP. (2009). The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Cambridge,
UK.
IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). (2009). In J. C. Vi, C. Hilton-Taylor, & S. N. Stuart (Eds.), Wildlife
in a changing world: An analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of threatened species.
Switzerland.
Jenner, J. V., & Dowling, H. G. (1985). Taxonomy of American Xenodontine snakes:
The tribe Pseudoboini. Herpetologica, 41, 161172.
Jones, K. E., Purvis, A., & Gittleman, J. L. (2003). Biological correlates of extinction
risk in bats. The American Naturalist, 161, 601614.
Joseph, L. N., Maloney, R. F., & Possingham, H. P. (2009). Optimal allocation of
resources among threatened species: A project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology, 23, 328338.
Keith, D. A., McCarthy, M. A., Regan, H., Bowles, C., Drill, C., Craig, C., et al. (2004).
Protocols for listing threatened species can forecast extinction. Ecology Letters,
7, 11011108.
Lande, R. (1993). Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. The American Naturalist, 142,
911927.
Last of the Wild Data Version 2. (2005). (LWP-2): Global Human Inuence Index
(HII). Wildlife Conservation (WCS) and Center for International Earth Science
Information Network (CIESIN).
Laurance, W. F. (2008). Theory meets reality: How habitat fragmentation research
has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biological Conservation, 141,
17311744.
Mace, G. M., Gittleman, J. L., & Purvis, A. (2003). Preserving the tree of life. Science,
300, 17071709.
Mace, G. M., Possingham, H. P., & Williams, N. L. (2007). Prioritizing choices in conservation. In D. W. Macdonald, & K. Service (Eds.), Key topics in conservation biology
(pp. 1734). United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Maddison, W. P., & Maddison, D. R. (2007). Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.7.1. Retrieved from http://mesquiteproject.org
Maddison, W. P., & Mooers, A. . (2007). Tuatara: Conservation priority in a
phylogenetic context. Version 1.0. Retrieved from http://mesquiteproject.org/
packages/tuatara
Martins, M., Arajo, M. S., Sawaya, R. J., & Nunes, R. (2001). Diversity and evolution
of macrohabitat use, body size and morphology in a monophyletic group of
Neotropical pitvipers (Bothrops). Journal of Zoology, 254, 529538.
May, R. M. (1990). Taxonomy as destiny. Nature, 347, 129130.
Mckinney, M. L. (1997). Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: Combining ecological and paleontological views. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28,
495516.
Millsap, B. A., Gore, J. A., Runde, D. E., & Cerulean, S. J. (1990). Setting priorities for
the conservation of sh and wildlife species in Florida. Wildlife Monographs, 111,
157.
Mrosovsky, N. (1997). IUCNs credibility critically endangered. Nature, 389, 436.
Myers, N., & Knoll, A. H. (2001). The biotic crisis and the future of evolution.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 53895392.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000).
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853858.
OGrady, J. J., Burgman, M. A., Keith, D. A., Master, L. L., Andelman, S. J., Brook,
B. W., et al. (2004). Correlations among extinction risks assessed by different systems of threatened species categorization. Conservation Biology, 18,
16241635.

55

Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanaya, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G. V. N.,
Underwood, E. C., et al. (2001). Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map
of life on earth. Bioscience, 51, 933938.
Petchey, O. L., & Gaston, K. J. (2006). Functional diversity: Back to basics and looking
forward. Ecology Letters, 9, 741758.
Pimm, S. J., Ayres, M., Balmford, A., Branch, G., Brandon, K., Brooks, K., et al. (2001).
Can we defy natures end? Science, 293, 22072208.
Pimm, S. L., Jones, H. L., & Diamond, J. (1988). On the risk of extinction. The American
Naturalist, 132, 757785.
Pimm, S. L., Russell, G. J., Gittleman, J. L., & Brooks, T. M. (1995). The future of
biodiversity. Science, 269, 347350.
Polasky, S. (2008). Why conservation planning needs socioeconomic data.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 65056506.
Posadas, P., Esquivel, D. R. M., & Crisci, J. V. (2001). Using phylogenetic diversity
measures to set priorities in conservation: An example from Southern South
America. Conservation Biology, 15, 13251334.
Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., Cowlishaw, G., & Mace, G. M. (2000). Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 267,
19471952.
Rabinowitz, D. S., Cairns, S., & Dillon, T. (1986). Seven forms of rarity and their
frequency in the ora of British Isles. In M. E. Soul (Ed.), Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity (pp. 182204). Massachusetts: Sinauer
Associates.
Redding, D. W., Dewolff, C. V., & Mooers, A. . (2010). Evolutionary distinctiveness, threat status, and ecological oddity in primates. Conservation Biology, 24,
10521058.
Redding, D. W., & Mooers, A. . (2006). Incorporating evolutionary measures into
conservation prioritization. Conservation Biology, 20, 16701678.
Reeves, R. R., Smith, B. D., Crespo, E. A., & Sciara, G. N. (orgs). (2003). Dolphins, whales
and porpoises: 20022010 conservation action plan for the worlds cetaceans.
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN/SSC Cetacean Specialist Group,
IUCN.
Regan, T. J., Master, L. L., & Hammerson, G. A. (2004). Capturing expert knowledge for
threatened species assessments: A case study using NatureServe conservation
status ranks. Acta Oecologica, 26, 95107.
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M.,
et al. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing
species diversity. Nature, 428, 640643.
Sanderson, E. W., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M. A., Redford, K. H., Wannebo, A. V., & Woolmer, G.
(2002). The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild. BioScience, 52, 891904.
Sattler, T., Bontadina, F., Hirzel, A. H., & Arlettaz, R. (2007). Ecological niche modeling
of two cryptic bat species calls for a reassessment of their conservation status.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 11881199.
Sechrest, W., Brooks, T. M., Fonseca, G. A. B., Konstant, W. R., Mittermeier, R. A.,
Purvis, A., et al. (2002). Hotspots and the conservation of evolutionary history.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 20672071.
Segura, C., Feriche, M., Pleguezuelos, J., & Santos, X. (2007). Specialist and generalist species in habitat use: Implications for conservation assessment in snakes.
Natural History, 41, 27652774.
Steel, M., Mimoto, A., & Mooers, A. . (2007). Hedging our bets: The expected contribution of species to future phylogenetic diversity. Evolutionary Bioinformatics,
2007, 237244.
Swihart, R. K., Gehring, T. M., Kolozsvary, M. B., & Nupp, T. E. (2003). Responses
of resistant vertebrates to habitat loss and fragmentation: The importance of
niche breadth and range boundaries. Diversity and Distributions, 9, 118.
Tanentzap, A. J., Walker, S., Stephens, R. T. T., & Lee, W. G. (2012). A framework for
predicting species extinction by linking population dynamics with habitat loss.
Conservation Letters, 5, 149156.
Todd, C. R., & Burgman, M. A. (1998). Assessment of threat and conservation priorities under realistic levels of uncertainty and reliability. Conservation Biology, 12,
966974.
Uetz, P. (editor). (2013). The reptile database. Retrieved from http://www.
reptile-database.org
Vane-Wright, R., Humphries, C., & Williams, P. (1991). What to protect? Systematics
and the agony of choice. Biological Conservation, 55, 235254.
Vidal, N., Dewynter, M., & Gower, D. J. (2010). Dissecting the major American
snake radiation: A molecular phylogeny of the Dipsadidae Bonaparte (Serpentes,
Caenophidia). Comptes Rendus Biologies, 333, 4855.
Webb, J. K., Brook, B. W., & Shine, R. (2002). What makes a species vulnerable to
extinction? Comparative life-history traits of two sympatric snakes. Ecological
Research, 17, 5967.
Wilson, H. B., Joseph, L. N., Moore, A. L., & Possingham, H. P. (2011). When should
we save the most endangered species? Ecology Letters, 14, 886890.
Wilson, K. A., Carwardine, J., & Possingham, H. P. (2009). Setting conservation priorities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1162, 237264.
Wilson, K. A., McBride, M. F., Bode, M., & Possingham, H. P. (2006). Prioritizing global
conservation efforts. Nature, 440, 337340.
Winter, M., Devictor, V., & Schweiger, O. (2013). Phylogenetic diversity and nature
conservation: Where are we? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28, 199204.
Zaher, H., Grazziotin, F. G., Cadle, J. E., Murphy, R. W., Moura-Leite, J. C., & Bonatto,
S. L. (2009). Molecular phylogeny of advanced snakes (Serpentes, Caenophidia)
with an emphasis on South American Xenodontines: A revised classication and
descriptions of new taxa. Papis Avulsos de Zoologia, 49, 115153.
Zar, J. H. (1999). Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall., 663 pp.